🚀 go-pugleaf

From article <1449@ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>, by rampil@cca.ucsf.edu (Ira Rampil):
> In article <16@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (lad) writes:
>>
>>If you're looking to compare the performance of SCSI disks Disktimer is NOT the way to
>>do it.  Disktimer is not a benchmark,  it favors disks with a 1:1 interleave and it's
>>results do not reflect real-world disk performance.  Supermac based their whole
>>marketing scheme around Disktimer,  saying their disks were faster because Disktimer
>>said so.
>>
>>-- 
>>        Lawrence A. Deleski             |       E.I. Dupont Co.
> 
> Could it be that DiskTimer favors 1:1 interleave disks because
> they ARE faster?  Is this in dispute?

1:1 disks are faster only if the machine they're working on supports 1:1.  For
example,  Apple claims that a 3:1 interleave is optimal for a Mac Plus,  so a disk
formatted to 1:1 is going perform slower.  Disktimer's problem is that it totally
bypassed the driver and made calls directly to the low-level SCSI routines,  totally
ignoring the OS.  Any disk with a 1:1 interleave performed better in Disktimer no
matter what machine it was being run on.  There are several other reasons why
Disktimer should not be seriously considered when evaluating SCSI disk performance,
but they are very technical in nature.

Disktimer II:  Just say NO.


        Lawrence A. Deleski             |       E.I. Dupont Co.
        uunet!eplrx7!lad                |       Engineering Physics Lab
        Cash-We-Serve 76127,104         |       Wilmington, Delaware 19898
        MABELL:  (302) 695-9353         |       Mail Stop: E357-302
-- 
        Lawrence A. Deleski             |       E.I. Dupont Co.
        uunet!eplrx7!lad                |       Engineering Physics Lab
        Cash-We-Serve 76127,104         |       Wilmington, Delaware 19898
        MABELL:  (302) 695-9353         |       Mail Stop: E357-302